Married Daughter Not Eligible For Loss Of Dependency Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Unless She Proves Financial Dependence On Deceased: Supreme Court
The appeals before the Apex Court challenged the judgment reducing the compensation payable to the married daughter of the deceased and dismissing the claim of the deceased’s mother.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
While upholding the order reducing the compensation awarded to a married daughter of a woman who died in a motor accident, the Supreme Court reiterated that a married daughter may be considered as a legal representative but she will not be eligible for loss of dependency compensation unless it is proven that she was financially dependent on the deceased.
The appeals before the Apex Court challenged the common judgement of the Rajasthan High Court whereby the High Court reduced the compensation payable to the married daughter of the deceased and dismissed the claim in so far as it related to the deceased’s mother (second appellant) in a case arising out of a claim petition filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran said, “Sections 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 focus on the financial relationship between the deceased and the Claimant. A married daughter may be considered a legal representative, as per Manjuri Bera, but she will not be eligible for loss of dependency compensation unless it is proven by the daughter that she was financially dependent on the deceased. Thus, it is clear from the record that Appellant No. 1 has failed to prove that she was being financially supported by her mother post marriage and hence cannot be said to be a dependent of her mother, the deceased.”
Factual Background
The incident dates back to the year 2008 when the deceased, met with an accident when a Roadways bus (offending vehicle) stopped and negligently took a sudden right turn. The deceased, who was on her two-wheeler, came under the tyre of the offending vehicle and succumbed to her injuries.
The Tribunal, however, only allowed the claim petition to the extent of Rs 15,97,000 with interest, holding the driver of the offending vehicle (second Respondent ), the owner of the offending vehicle (third Respondent) and the insurer of the offending vehicle (first Respondent), jointly and severally liable. The High Court, dismissed the appeal filed by the Claimants-Appellants and partly allowed the appeal of Insurance Company.
Arguments
The appellants challenged this order before the Apex Court contending that the High Court misinterpreted interpretation given in Manjuri Bera & Anr. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2007). The appellants claimed that they were entirely dependent on the deceased. The deceased was married but her husband had left her soon after the birth of her daughter, after which the deceased’s mother was living with her.
Reasoning
The Bench took note of the fact that the death of the deceased was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle owned by the third Respondent, which was insured by the first Respondent. The Bench explained that once a daughter is married, the logical presumption is that she has rights on her matrimonial household and is also financially supported by her husband or his family, unless proven otherwise. It is more than likely that her dependence on her natal family, including her mother, would cease.
The Bench found that the daughter of the deceased woman had failed to prove that she was being financially supported by her mother post-marriage, and hence she couldn’t be said to be a dependent of her mother, the deceased. It was further held that the High Court correctly relied on Manjuri Bera while holding that the first Appellant, as the legal representative of the deceased, would only be entitled to compensation envisaged in Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as liability under the same did not cease to exist in the absence of dependency.
“However, the High Court erred in setting aside the Tribunal’s award as it relates to Appellant No. 2, the mother of the deceased”, the Bench said after taking note of the fact that the Appellant mother was aged about 70 years of age at the time of the accident resulting in the death of her daughter, the deceased, and was solely dependent on the deceased as she lived with her and had no independent income.
“The obligation of a child to maintain their parent in old age is as much of a duty as the obligation of a parent to maintain their child during minority. The deceased, being the only provider, would be assumed to be fulfilling this obligation, further reinforcing Appellant No. 2’s status as a dependent”, the Bench held.
Thus, taking into consideration all relevant factors such as the total income of the deceased, loss of estate, loss of filial consortium etc, the Bench found that the Appellant mother was entitled to a compensation of Rs 19,22,356. Upholding the impugned order insofar as it pertained to the compensation awarded to the Appellant daughter, the Bench directed that a sum of Rs.19,22,356 be awarded to the mother of the deceased as compensation.
Cause Title: Deep Shikha & Anr v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 675)